|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/25/05 12:13 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear to be illegal under Canadian law. Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill that states what the law is so that we can verify? I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree, feel free to refute it. You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than usual! LOL. ===================== The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh? Still don't have anything... LOL. Keep playing the fool. ================= LOL Right! I am playing you for the fool you are. Thanks for admitting it. |
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
I find it credible Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means nothing. I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0. Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be somewhat less accommodating to you. Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it. Nah. It's up to you to refute them. I've never heard of such a law. How do I prove something that doesn't exist? Your claim - your burden of proof, coward. Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying. Prove it. So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital? Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does. Mike |
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and childish manner. Prove it. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
A Usenet persona calling itself bearsbuddy wrote:
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear to be illegal under Canadian law. Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill that states what the law is so that we can verify? This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity. Well, from you sertainly. It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can. I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up. Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy actually covers. I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual. Mike Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked: http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php Sorry, your link is unpersuasive. The question is whether Canadian supplemental health insurance covers HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. If you disbelieve the story I cited, blame the AP, not me. But before you do have a look at this: "Over the last 30 years, say critics, Canada's socialized health care system -- known as medicare -- has destroyed what was arguably the second-best health care system in the world, next to the U.S. Rationing of health care by waiting is becoming increasingly common, and there are shortages of hospital rooms and doctors. For instance, Ontario recently conceded it needs an additional 1,000 doctors, and according to the New York Times, 23 of Toronto's 25 hospitals had to turn away ambulances one day in January. Finally, an official at Vancouver General Hospital estimates that 20 percent of heart attack patients, who should be treated in 15 minutes, are waiting an hour or more for care." Source: Editorial, "Tired of Socialized Medicine," Investor's Business Daily, January 26, 2000. "Twenty Myths About National Health Insurance NCPA Policy Report #166 December 1991" * "Countries with national health insurance make health care "free" to patients and at the same time limit spending and access to modern medical technology. As a result, there is widespread rationing, bureaucratic inefficiency and a lower quality of care. When access to modern medical technology is rationed, who receives care? Mounting evidence suggests that the wealthy, the powerful and the sophisticated find ways of moving to the head of the waiting lines, while the poor, the elderly, racial minorities and rural residents wait longer. € Studies show that the Inuits (Eskimos) and Crees in Canada and the Maoris in New Zealand receive less health care and have worse health outcomes than other citizens of those countries. € The most recent studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age. € Studies in almost every country with national health insurance find that low-income families often have less access to care in relation to their need for it than higher-income families. .... Canadian provincial governments restrict modern medical technology to hospitals, usually in large cities, and actively discourage outpatient surgery. Rural residents must travel to the cities for the services of most specialists and for most surgical procedures. But considering the inconvenience of travel and the fact that specialized services are rationed by waiting, how often do rural residents actually get care? Consider that: € Total per capita spending on physicians' services among British Columbia's 30 regional hospital districts varies by a factor of six to one, and spending on the services of specialists varies by a factor of 12 to 1. € Spending varies by a factor of almost 4 to 1 for obstetrical/gynecological (OB/GYN) services, 8 to 1 for the services of internists and 35 to 1 for the services of psychiatrists." Lots more interesting stuff at the source: http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/s166/s166.html -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states: ============== The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow "artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The market system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans are fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because "economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is an entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts. =============== Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market" is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people. He's wrong. Perhaps not universally, but mostly. Only socialist/communist societies "impose" a market system on people, and the one they impose is "We'll take everything you produce, decide how to distribute it and decide how much, if anything, you get back." His contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to "force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what it takes - force. As I carefully outlined, his premise is flawed because he ignores the fact that while human beings are cooperative *in part,* they are also selfish in part, and it is this individual self-interest that creates "markets" as a natural function of human society. No force is required, and market economies naturally flow from human nature and an excess of energy resources. You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.". I wonder. Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto industry would concur? Certainly, if they took the time to analyze the issue. Do they believe that they should be denied what Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not. The flaw in your argument is the presumption that a desire for protection and a "natural market instinct" are mutually exclusive. They are not. It's a complex energy dynamic. Natural market instincts may be suppressed during times of energy stress, but the instinct remains and will re-emerge as soon as available energy resources begin to exceed basic energy needs. Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective stance as opposed to the free market stance. That has little to do with natural instincts and everything to do with politics and high-level economic policy. The US response to lumber dumping by Canada is "protectionist" certainly, but it's not "instinctive." Nor is the government "forcing" citizens out of a "natural tendency" towards cooperation. If anything, the government is merely enforcing such natural tendencies among *clan members.* The dynamics of interclan/intertribal/international protectionism don't mutually exclude the dynamics of natural markets. Polanyi seems to believe, based on what you've posted (which isn't much) that the natural state of human beings is socialistic egalitarianism where each member of the clan has no individual self-interest but rather is absolutely altruistic to the needs of the clan as a whole. I don't see any evidence that this assertion is anywhere remotely connected to the truth of human nature, which by observation is clearly almost diametrically opposed to that model. Human beings are inherently selfish, as is any organism obeying the prime biological directive of survival, and as a rule, they only cooperate with others when it is to *their* direct physical and social benefit to do so. So long as the clan structure and operation provides greater benefits through group membership than being alone, the human will seek it out and participate in it. This is the Principle of Enlightened Self-interest. But when the clan structure becomes harmful to the individual and his interests, he will leave the clan and strike out on his own, or seek another clan structure that better benefits his individual needs. From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society has the power to control the political system. I think it's much deeper than that. However, it is true that leaders with a strong power structure able to enforce decisions on the clan can skew the system markedly. But that's an aberration, not the normal situation. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/24/05 5:21 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: but that does not mean the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity" with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity. It's all about levelling the playing field. When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you drive the opportunities to excel into the ground. Giving a child an education and health care is not going to deprive them of motivation to seek a better life. It depends on how you go about it. The problem with public schools and public health care is that they usually provide very little of either. This is true of most government-run institutions, which is why private education is much better. Level playing fields are for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues the struggle of actually climbing the mountain. LOL. There's plenty of struggle left to emerge from poverty even if you can go to school and not have your arm fall off if you get an infection. Do try to think a bit more deeply about the philosophical issues. As Thomas Babington Mcaulay said of Robert Southey, "He does not seem to know what an argument is. He never uses arguments himself. He never troubles himself to answer the arguments of an opponent. It has never occurred to him that a man ought to be able to give some better account of the way in which he has arrived at his opinions than merely that it is his will and pleasure to hold them. It has never occurred to him...that when an objection is raised, it ought to be met with something more than 'scoundrel' or 'blockhead'." (Thanks to Vincent Carroll of the Rocky Mountain News for bringing this trenchant quote to my attention.) There are a lot of Southey's in this forum, that's for sure. As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education does not. LOL. Is it possible that private education is far more effective because those who have the means to access it have advantages that those who do not have the means to access it are lacking? I donąt think so. You imply that the poor are somehow less likely to have the native intelligence to take advantage of private education. This is demonstrably not so. There are many charitable, non-profit private schools that provide opportunities for the poor, who frequently excel, to a far greater degree than do children in the same community who are in the public school system. Yes, sure enough, put a bunch of kids living in poverty into a shabby school with shabby teachers and drug dealers roaming the halls, and yes, they are probably not going to go to Harvard like Little Lord Scottleroy on the other side of the tracks. Well, there you go agreeing with me again. Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance. But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?" I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and health care is a society deserving of implosion. Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of another individual's "rights." However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation. I should be, but I'm not suprised to find an American who believes that there is no obvious justification for children learning to read and write and to not have their left foot rot off because they can't get health care. It's not what I believe that's at issue, it's how you support your arguments. I find flaws in your arguments and exploit them. You're supposed to use some intellectual capacity to make reasoned arguments in response. It's called a "debate." You don't get a free pass just because you think your point is obvious. You have to do better than that. That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition they require, and does not have to work while studying? It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for it. A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry. It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future. As you seem to have recognized, that too is irrelevant to the child and not in their control. So, whose duty is it then? Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure. Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty. Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about? Figure it out. Why? You said it, you explain it. No, the whole point is for you to exercise that thing on top of your neck and figure it out yourself. I have no intention of "leveling the playing field" for you. Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty?" From their parents. And if they don't learn it from their parents? Good question. Likely they get to dig ditches and haul garbage. What do you suggest we do about such deficient parenting? is all they know is poverty? Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity and success. Oh, you mean just because some little kid can see rich people on TV, that should give her the tools she needs to overcome the barriers of illiteracy and disease? Nope, that's not what I mean. Geez you are dense. If they are illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into Harvard and onto the presidency? They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in "leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support and encouragement towards success. LOL. Giving a child the chance to learn to read and write and survive into adulthoos is hardly going to far...unless you are an unbelievably selfish prig. See above Macaulay quote. FYI, not every community has a Catholic hospital around the corner. Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community, then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable resources available for the poor. Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county. No, the parents should. And if they don't? I've already suggested that this might constitute child neglect and that perhaps the state should take custody of the child. What's your plan for bad parenting? You are living in a dreamland of selfish ignorance. Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality. That's not what I'm saying at all. I believe in a hand up, not a handout. Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life. I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults. Oh, hell's bells, I'm with you on the problem of adult responsibility. Well, why didn't you just say so? Heck, look at all the citizens that don't even exercise their basic obligations as citizens, and let a twit like Bush get re-elected. Isn't it frightening how few Americans bother to vote? Not really. If they don't want to vote, I don't want them voting. They just screw thing up for those of us who make an effort to participate. I might even be persuaded to lean towards Jeffersonian democracy where only landholders are allowed to vote and where you have to pass a simple test on the issues before you can vote. Heinlein had some interesting ideas: In order to become a "Citizen" you first have to contribute to the society through a period of public service. Once you do, you get to vote and you get other perks, like being allowed to own land and businesses. If you're an adult on the dole, and haven't put in your time, then you get a basic allotment including food, housing, clothing and medical care, but it's not much and doesn't include any luxuries, and you get to do the scut-work of society, working for Citizens. The companion principle he espoused was the principle of "Coventry." This principle says that if you cannot, or care not to participate in the society in conformance with the mores and laws of the society, then society has a right to exclude you from the benefits that accrue by ejecting you from the society into a place called Coventry, where there are no laws, no rules, no dole, no anything. You're dropped inside the wall with what you have on, and it's up to you to survive without the assistance of the society you have rejected. Nevada would make a good Coventry. I don't much care for "motor voter" registration schemes and other liberal democrat attempts to "get out the vote" to people who don't even value the franchise enough to take an hour to go register, much less go vote. If you can't get off your ass to register and vote, then you deserve what you get and I don't want to hear any whining. And I certainly don't want to waste any time trying to convince anyone of the value of their vote. If they don't understand it by now, they don't deserve the franchise. So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it. It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt out. Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. They didn't opt out, they are apparently part of some archaic system where the only support for education comes from property taxes. But there's nothing preventing them from contributing voluntarily to the school system directly...but they don't. Why is that? How is it that they aren't being "cooperative?" And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide free health care for the indigent. Geezus, giving someone the only choice of going to a Catholic institution is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself. Bigot. There's lots of charitable foundations and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the participation of the government...at lower expense to the public. You can't download fundamental societal responsibilities to charities, not if you don't want a grossly fragmented and grossly unjust society. How is that an inevitable result? So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt out." It is quite true. You aren't going to have universal services without universal support. Then we will never have universal services because there will never be universal support. Care to be a bit more scholarly? Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet society continues to provide services to them. Clearly I am talking about those with the means to contribute. Nothing is clear until you clarify it. But now you argue that there are some "free riders" who must be allowed to benefit without contributing. So, why should anyone contribute? Why shouldn't they simply arrange things so they don't have to contribute? That's what happened in the Soviet Union, which is why it failed. What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and socialistic egalitarianism. I'm not a socialist and never have been. You certainly sound like one in your Usenet persona. All I want is literacy and health for children so they have a chance. No argument there. The argument is both how we achieve that goal and what to do about non-children who want to continue to suck at the public teat long after they've grown up. There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for the very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or merely require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry. The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab one. I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth. Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities. I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own opportunities. Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like. That approach obviously isn't working. Don't blame if you and your countrymen are cheapskates. If you believe, as I do and as do most Canadians and Americans, that education and health care are fundamental rights, then you don't leave it up to random acts of kindness by strangers. "Kindness" doesn't have to be random, it can, and usually is, a manifestation of enlightened self interest. If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that. LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and there's no jobs. Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO of Ford. Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians? Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood into the country to take these jobs. Would the fact that they are paid at levels and work in conditions that would be illegal for american citizens have something to do with that? If it's illegal then it's illegal for illegals too. Fact is that the working conditions for illegals are not much different than they are for anybody else in a particular job. As for pay, if illegals are willing to work for illegally-low wages, who am I to complain? It's their right as individuals to decide how much their labor is worth. They could demand legal wages...except that they are illegals and thus chance being deported if they complain. Gee, what a conundrum. I guess they ought to go back to their own countries and find work there, at a "legal" wage in "legal" working conditions if they are being so badly exploited. Why don't they, do you suppose? I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those born into wealth. And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government operations. Yes, a private school is likely to be more efficient and more economical, in my opinion (although public schools, particularly where interference from governing bureaucrats is limited, can be very effective). But the private school is not going to serve all children. It is only going to serve the children who can afford to make the school profitable. Why is it not going to serve all children? Could it be because it's in direct competition with free public schools? Do you suppose that if public schools were closed that perhaps educational entrepreneurs might see the market potential in all that vacant school-building real estate and that fierce competition for the facilities and the chance to make some money might emerge? As you admitted above, private schools are almost *always* more efficient and economical. Thus, absent the unfair competition from free public schools, they would flourish, and the market would keep the prices low and the quality high, just as it always does in a free-market environment. And where would the parents get the money to send their kids to school? Why, from the money they no longer have to pay to wasteful public school bureaucracies, of course! Private enterprise free-market economics and lower taxes....what a concept. "But wait!" you cry, "What about the really poor who don't pay taxes to begin with and thus wouldn't realize any net gain to fund private school?" Well, I reply, that's a problem easily handled by imposing a national sales tax on consumer goods, (which we ought to do anyway to replace the income tax) a portion of which is dedicated to funding education for children who are too poor to pay for it themselves. The tax is imposed *voluntarily* on those who choose, and have the money, to spend on luxuries (if you don't want to pay the tax, donąt consume luxuries) and it only funds the *actual* educational needs of *actual* low-income students. It does not fund the bureaucratic excesses of bloated and inefficient public school systems that care absolutely nothing about the actual academic success of an individual student, but only care that there is a warm little ass in the seat every day so they can get their per-diem from the state. The fundamental difference would be that the stipend would *follow the child,* not be allocated to a local school district. Thus, each low-income child of school age would have allocated an amount of money to be used solely for paying for school at a private institution. The amount would be based on market research to determine the average cost per pupil in the particular market. The various private schools would then *compete* with each other to provide the best educational experience at the lowest cost so as to both attract student dollars and provide a profit to the owners. Pure free-market economics that would provide the best possible education for all students, because parents would demand it or they would find another, better school. This system already works within the sphere of those who can afford to send their kids to private schools, and there's no reason it won't work for all children. FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades. Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case? Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass grade eight on his own merits. And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college As I said, money can buy anything if you have enough. So, you're telling us that both Yale and Harvard are on the take? Somehow I don't believe you. Do you have any proof of your assertion? It doesn't hurt to have a family name that carries weight either. Do you have some proof that his "famiiy name" got his grades changed or caused both Yale and Harvard to issue him undeserved degrees? flew fighter jets in the military (which I'm betting you've never done) He didn't seem to do much of it either. He did every single flight hour that was required of him by his contract with the Air National Guard and received an honorable discharge in full accordance with Guard policy. Do you have some credible evidence to the contrary? NOTE: your disdain does not qualify as "credible evidence." was the governor of Texas and is now the President of the United States. Yes, I'm aware. One does not achieve either by having only an eighth-grade education. I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and ignorant proclamations. I stand by my assertion that if forced to survive on his own merits, he would have difficulty passing grade eight. And I repeat, he has an MBA and degrees from not one, but two Ivy League colleges. How about you, any Ivy League degrees? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness over the rule of law. I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it doesn't meet your needs. Really? How so? If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about that? Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your needs"? You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or be branded a liar. Brand away rick. Er, Scotty. It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights. Based on what evidence, precisely? If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the society that would support it. But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your beef? If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care? Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other adults. It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share. You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be ethically and legitimately imposed on others. Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly contributing to universal health care. The minuteness of your circle of friends is not determinative of the issue. I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes with it. Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden on others without their consent. In some societies it is simply something people want. Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you? No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either. And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns, wouldn't they? They'd have been better off not being shot. Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes. They were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again. Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda would have even been possible? Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing. You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people - by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare - as a burden. Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think, its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do. You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department) for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out. Sure you can. Charity begins at home. Charity cannot provide universal education and health care. Why not? You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs. Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of your own prejudices and rhetoric. Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate" so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does. What ever made you think that? Your preceding statement. Stupid is as stupid does. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost. Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin. Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad. Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I find it credible Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means nothing. And yet you cannot refute the author. I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0. What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility? Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be somewhat less accommodating to you. Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it. Nah, I've done so many time. You just don't like the answers, so you resort to ad hominem insults because you've got nothing probative to say. Nah. It's up to you to refute them. I've never heard of such a law. Your ignorance is legendary. How do I prove something that doesn't exist? That you are ignorant does not prove the non-existence of the law. Your claim - your burden of proof, coward. Lame. Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying. Prove it. Why would I bother? So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital? Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does. I don't think so. How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement you have so we can all see if you're lying. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and childish manner. Prove it. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools. That's precisely what I want to do. That's what a lot of people who have some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do. Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education, and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to high-quality, universally-available education we can have. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:46 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness over the rule of law. I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it doesn't meet your needs. Really? How so? If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about that? Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your needs"? You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or be branded a liar. Brand away rick. Er, Scotty. It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights. Based on what evidence, precisely? If only I had a warrant... But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression. If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the society that would support it. But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your beef? If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care? Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other adults. It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share. You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be ethically and legitimately imposed on others. It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit. Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly contributing to universal health care. The minuteness of your circle of friends is not determinative of the issue. As it happens it is a rather broad circle. I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes with it. Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden on others without their consent. In some societies it is simply something people want. Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you? No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either. And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns, wouldn't they? They'd have been better off not being shot. Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes. They'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well. They were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again. Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda would have even been possible? Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing. Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the bad ones don't. You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people - by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare - as a burden. Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think, its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do. You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department) for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out. Sure you can. Charity begins at home. Charity cannot provide universal education and health care. Why not? Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding to operate one. When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated. You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs. Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of your own prejudices and rhetoric. Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate" so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does. What ever made you think that? Your preceding statement. Stupid is as stupid does. And you ARE stupid. |
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools. That's precisely what I want to do. I know. That's what a lot of people who have some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do. That's what selfish prigs want to do. I have a perfect understanding of free market ecomomics. The outcome of applying free market economics to education and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid system of haves and have-nots. Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education, and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to high-quality, universally-available education we can have. Absolutely insane. |
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
And yet you cannot refute the author The existance of my policy is proof enough. Of course, you believe anything you read as long as it fits your narrow, biased view of the world. The rest of us don't believe everything we read. But then you're a "journalist" so you have to support other "journalist's" lies. What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility? If you cared at all what others think, you wouldn't lie so much. Nah, I've done so many time. More bull****. You just continue to make ridiculous claims and never offer any real proof. Your claim - your burden of proof, coward. Lame. You continue to evade and avoid confronting the truth. How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement you have so we can all see if you're lying. You first - post a credible link to the law that you claim exists that prevents us from buying the insurance that many Canadians hold. Mike |
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Mike |
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Based on what evidence, precisely? Why should you expect anyone to provide evidence when you consistently refuse to provide any of your own? Mike |
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Prove it. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. You prove nothing, as usual. Untol you start providing proof of your claims, you will remain the only bull****ter on this newsgroup. Mike |
in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 3/25/05 9:36 PM: On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Mike What's he trying to say Mike? That we can't have health insurance? Or that it can't be used for hospital care? Here's what comes with a ManuLife Flex Care policy (thousands of Canadians have one of these): $250,000 lifetime maximum (applies to all Extended Health Care benefits) Best Doctors ®Solutions Services - upon diagnosis of a serious illness or injury, you can receive an evaluation of your medical records by world-class specialists who confirm the initial diagnosis and recommend appropriate treatment options. This fast, yet indepth review can reduce potentially serious complications from a misdiagnosis and help your local physician determine the proper course of action. In addition to medical advice, Best Doctors provides the following services: treatment planning, identification of the most appropriate care provider, and care management. Chiropractor, Chiropodist, Osteopath, Naturopath, Podiatrist, Registered Massage Therapist, Acupuncturist, Physiotherapist - combined maximum of $750 per anniversary year for all eight of these paramedical specialists, including chiropractic x-rays (payable only after Government Health Insurance Plan maximums have been reached, if applicable) Psychologist or approved social worker - $80 maximum first visit, $65 maximum subsequent visits, 12 visit maximum per anniversary year Homecare and Nursing, Prosthetic Appliances, Durable Medical Equipment - combined maximum of $8,500 per anniversary year A quick tour of http://www.coverme.com/ should make it obvious that Canadians can purchase health insurance. |
Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health; See:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2003001.htm -- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. |
Frederick, thanks. Sheds useful light on the discussion.
Wilf |
in article , Frederick Burroughs at
wrote on 3/25/05 10:01 PM: Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health; See: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2003001.htm That's an interesting read. It's amazing how close so many of the numbers are. I was quite surprised to find more slightly more smokers in Canada. I bet a lot of Canadians would be surprised by that, although I remember encountering "smoke free" shopping malls in areas of the US long before most places in Canada caught on. I know the gap is only 2% but it still surprised me. The 6% gap of obesity (21% US, 15% Canadian) is quite something, I guess SuperSize Me had it about right. I see so many Canadians lining up at Tim Horton's (donuts) that I can't believe there's a people somewhere that could be 6% more obese! |
On 25-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:
What's he trying to say Mike? He's trying to say that he's always right and everyone else is always wrong. He believes that what he says is true without having to provide any evidence. He is, in other words, a real asshole. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it doesn't meet your needs. Really? How so? If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about that? Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your needs"? You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or be branded a liar. Brand away rick. Er, Scotty. It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights. Based on what evidence, precisely? If only I had a warrant... But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression. Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer from? If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the society that would support it. But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your beef? If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care? Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other adults. It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share. You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be ethically and legitimately imposed on others. It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit. Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others, however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard? In some societies it is simply something people want. Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you? No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either. And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns, wouldn't they? They'd have been better off not being shot. Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes. They'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well. They were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again. Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda would have even been possible? Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing. Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the bad ones don't. So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society? How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid. You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people - by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare - as a burden. Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think, its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do. You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department) for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out. Sure you can. Charity begins at home. Charity cannot provide universal education and health care. Why not? Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding to operate one. That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion. When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated. So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly run and need to be eliminated. Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from making such determinations? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 6:47 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost. Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin. Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad. Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it. I keep telling that to nuts who get mad when you tell them Bush stole the election. When have I ever said that? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who have opted-out by evading property taxes. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools. That's precisely what I want to do. I know. That's what a lot of people who have some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do. That's what selfish prigs want to do. Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient, ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Most of them are far more concerned about the education of children than you are. They simply realize that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of childhood education. I have a perfect understanding of free market ecomomics. Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist, to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice? Could it be that you overestimate your understanding? The outcome of applying free market economics to education and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid system of haves and have-nots. Socialist twaddle. Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education, and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to high-quality, universally-available education we can have. Absolutely insane. What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And yet you cannot refute the author The existance of my policy is proof enough. There is no proof your "policy" exists to begin with, there is merely your assertion that it does. Furthermore, the existence of a "policy," even if true, does not prove the point under contention, which is whether your policy provides for hospitalization and surgical care, or whether the author of the AP article was correct in telling us that Canada forces citizens to use the state-funded and operated system for hospitalization and surgical care, which results in rationing of health care and long (and sometimes fatal) waits. Of course, you believe anything you read as long as it fits your narrow, biased view of the world. The rest of us don't believe everything we read. But then you're a "journalist" so you have to support other "journalist's" lies. I certainly have more reason to believe a credible, accredited AP journalist more than a Netwit such as yourself, who not only can't prove anything, but can't even formulate a rational argument or rebuttal. How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement you have so we can all see if you're lying. You first - post a credible link to the law that you claim exists that prevents us from buying the insurance that many Canadians hold. I already did. You rejected the source. You didn't disprove the claims made by that source, however. The truth is easy to find, if you care to look. Fact is I have looked it up, and the AP reporter was quite correct. No supplemental insurance policy in Canada will allow you to " jump the queue" and obtain hospitalization or surgical treatment ahead of others higher on the priority list. And you can't prove otherwise. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Nope, they at best provide supplemental cost coverage for items purchased *during* government-rationed hospitalization and surgery. They do not provide complete coverage which allows you to obtain hospitalization or surgery on demand in a Canadian hospital. You still have to take your place in the priority queue in order to be scheduled for hospitalization or surgery. That your supplemental policy may pay for you to have a TV in your room, when and if you ever actually get a room, is beside the point. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Prove it. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. You prove nothing, as usual. Untol you start providing proof of your claims, you will remain the only bull****ter on this newsgroup. Which would make you the avid consumer of bull****. What does that make you, besides a stink-breath? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Michael Daly at wrote on 3/25/05 9:36 PM: On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does not, by law. Which law? Provide proof. The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth. Mike What's he trying to say Mike? That we can't have health insurance? Or that it can't be used for hospital care? Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the priority list than you. That it may cover all sorts of things that Canada's socialized medical system doesn't cover is beside the point. If you cannot use your insurance to guarantee you a room or surgery when YOU need it, not when the government decides to provide it to you, it's nothing more than palliative and gives you nothing more than a few perks in the hospital, provided you don't die waiting to be admitted. My old medical insurance provided that I could go to any hospital in the world and get immediate treatment, including admission and surgery as necessary, without any delay, without any permission from anybody, and it would pay the bills. You only get to go into the hospital if some government bureaucrat decides you "need" to do so, and you "need" to do so more urgently than somebody else. If they don't think you "need" to be admitted, or if they don't have room, you're ****ed, and you have to come to the US and pay the full price for your care. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:
-- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. Thompson was a drug and alcohol-addled pundit of dubious talent lionized by the left merely because he was willing to be outrageous. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote: What's he trying to say Mike? He's trying to say that he's always right and everyone else is always wrong. Well, not everyone. But you, most certainly. He believes that what he says is true without having to provide any evidence. He is, in other words, a real asshole. Pot, kettle, black. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
KMAN:
============= I was quite surprised to find more slightly more smokers in Canada. I bet a lot of Canadians would be surprised by that, although I remember encountering "smoke free" shopping malls in areas of the US long before most places in Canada caught on. I know the gap is only 2% but it still surprised me. =============== I too was surprised by that stat. Interestingly (my anecdotal observation only), the further east one travels in Canada, the more one is likely to encounter smoking. Here on the left coast, smokers are definitely an anomaly. Wilf |
Scott asserts:
============== Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the priority list than you. ============== And are you suggesting that there ought to be some sort of insurance coverage that could get you higher on the priority list? Just curious. frtzw906 |
Scott asserts (incorrectly):
============= You only get to go into the hospital if some government bureaucrat decides you "need" to do so, and you "need" to do so more urgently than somebody else. If they don't think you "need" to be admitted, or if they don't have room, you're ****ed, and you have to come to the US and pay the full price for your care. ================ Scott, my doctor determines whether I get admitted to hospital. Several members of my family have had cases where, upon diagnosis in the family physician's office, they were IMMEDIATELY sent to the hospital. The doctor phoned while they were enroute. Upon arriving, a bed was available. Within 24 hours, surgery had been performed. Not a single government bureaucrat involved. Oh, BTW, what would be the official title of this gov't bureaucrat? I know of no such position within the system: kommisar of hospital admittance LOL.... I hate to disappoint you, but doctors have considerable clout within our system. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Scott asserts: ============== Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the priority list than you. ============== And are you suggesting that there ought to be some sort of insurance coverage that could get you higher on the priority list? Just curious. ========================== Apparently there already is, if you work for the feds, rcmp, militay, or are covered by the workers comp board. They do get to step out of line and go to private surgical clinics instead o waiting like the rest o the minions... frtzw906 |
On 26-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: There is no proof your "policy" exists to begin with, there is merely your assertion that it does. There is only an assertion by soem AP reporter that the law exists. Fact is I have looked it up, Fine - tell us where. You're still full of ****. Mike |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com